Talk:Accountancy (constituency)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subject Names for Wikipedia Pages[edit]

This page, like many others created by the same editor, bears a name which is just the beginning of a disambiguation nightmare as it is non-specific. Its bold and absurd conceit is that there is not to be another election constituency anywhere else on Earth with the name "Accountancy". A better name would be, for example, "Accountancy Constituency (Hong Kong)". It is fundamentally wrong to stake out page space on wikipedia which is far broader than merited by the subject. Names ought to be intelligently devised to avoid this sort of confusion and domination. I recommend that the entire page be deleted and moved to a name properly formulated, such as the one I suggest. sirlanz 07:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, sirlanz. When this page was created, it was the only one on the encyclopedia about a legislative position called "Accountancy". It conflicted with our article on the profession Accounting which used to be called Accountancy, so the article on the constituency (the only one at the time) was created here. This page can easily be moved to Accountancy (Hong Kong) for example, if there are other Accountancy constituencies which have articles, or might have articles written about them in the future. Do you know of any others? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful for your comment, Ivanvector. We can't go Accountancy (Hong Kong) because the page neither is nor intends to be about that subject at all. It is about an electoral constitutency for people who claim to be accountants in Hong Kong, no more. As regards good faith, I'm not suggesting the page was established in the absence of it, merely that it is ill-advised and by one who desperately needs but rarely takes advice of any kind while building out an inexorable network of generally blatant rubbish for the benefit of the WP readership. Having considered your helpful post, I'm going for a move. sirlanz 13:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Accountancy (Hong Kong constituency). All three commenters appear to favour this title in the final analysis.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Accountancy Constituency (Hong Kong) → Accountancy (Hong Kong constituency) – The proper name of this government position is "Accountancy", not "Accountancy Constituency". It is a Hong Kong functional constituency which is called "Accountancy"; "Constituency" is not part of its formal title and is redundant. It is also not required for disambiguation as it is already disambiguated by geographic region. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. I think this is an uncontroversial move request, but since it has already been moved today I'm opening to discussion so as to determine consensus and move to a stable title. (Page was formerly Accountancy (constituency) and is disambiguated from a primary topic redirect at Accountancy.) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also because there may be a disambiguation page created in place of Accountancy (constituency) which will require correction of a large number of incoming links, and I'd rather not do it before determining consensus here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that is better. I've taken your suggestion and updated the move proposal. I didn't know we had a separate article on accounting specific to Hong Kong. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I had edited the proposal to incorporate IIO's suggestion, but I don't think WP:RM has been updated (I wasn't sure if the bot would do it, apparently not). Is this a support !vote, then? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus supports this move. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accountancy (Hong Kong constituency) → Accountancy (constituency) – It was the original title of the article. It clearly states that it is an Accountancy constituency without saying it is a Hong Kong constituency, as it is unnecessary because there is no another Accountancy constituency in the world. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The broad, sweeping claim for uniqueness the world over is very difficult (if not impossible) to verify. Secondly, it is improper for Hong Kong to carve out a primary position on WP for its constituency, thus making it the pre-eminent Accountancy (constituency), before all others, forcing those created subsequently to a lesser page title. An unqualified title smacks of superiority of tone and should be avoided. It is simply unjudicious for a page to bear so all-encompassing a title. sirlanz 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misnomer[edit]

This is a good example of how WP, ruled as it is by randomly formed ad hoc committees, meanders from mediocrity to mediocrity. And, absurdly, in purely arithmetic terms, a 3-0 vote has now been overruled by a 1-3 (i.e. a minority of 3-4 dictates the outcome). And if we take a moment to look at the quality of the anti-"Hong Kong" votes, two are from editors who, by their own account, are not native speakers of the language. They are simply not qualified to speak on the subject of its appropriate use.

The expression "Accountancy (constituency)" is generic. It describes the constituency of members of the accountancy profession. An article appearing under such a title would be naturally and properly expected to describe that constituency. There are numerous examples easily found on line of this obvious, basic use of the English language. The Financial Accounting Foundation (CT, USA) in its 2013 Annual Report speaks prominently of its constituents, for example. AccountingWeb speaks at length about the accountancy constituency in the 2015 UK general election. The International Federation of Accountants writes of its Small and Medium Practices constituency and AccountancyAge speaks of the role and influence of the "accountancy constituency" in US elections.

If someone decides to take the time to write about the accountancy constituency on WP, they will now have to take second place to Hong Kong's electoral constituency. This is plainly just creating a structural mess on WP. But go ahead. It's just as much your encyclopedia as mine and you're entitled to go on doing just as much damages to it as you want. sirlanz 00:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I meant to add a helpful example of how things ought to be (and are in places) on WP: Moreton Bay Fig Tree (Santa Barbara, California) sirlanz 00:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Functional?[edit]

There is a world of difference between a Functional Constituency and a functional one. If lmmnhn or anyone else wants to use the term "functional", then some source needs to be provided to support the suggestion that the Functional Constituencies of the Hong Kong Legislative Council are, indeed, functional. There is ample evidence to the contrary, i.e. (1) that they are not truly representative of the groups in society that function according to the name given them, e.g. "accountancy", thus that the constituency does not represent the function it claims; and (2) setting aside the Functional Constituencies' representativeness, there remains a serious question as to whether or not those constituencies are functional in the legislative context, bearing in mind that the members elected to represent them are among the least engaged in the legislative process and least interested in representing the views of those persons who are members of the societal group (contrast, registered voters) with which they are, by dint of their intitulation, associated.

So, in conclusion, the simple way to ensure that WP does not stretch the truth here is to use the required initial capitals, i.e. these are formal titles, and there is no claim to their descriptive veracity. sirlanz 04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Accountancy (constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accountancy_(constituency)&oldid=1197908153"